S. Bonaventurae Bagnoregis
S. R. E. Episc. Card. Albae
atque Doctor Ecclesiae Universalis

St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio
Cardinal Bishop of Alba
& Doctor of the Church

Commentaria in Quatuor Libros Sententiarum

Commentaries on the Four Books of Sentences

Magistri Petri Lombardi, Episc. Parisiensis

of Master Peter Lombard, Archbishop of Paris

SECUNDI LIBRI

BOOK TWO

COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM III.

COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION III

PARS II.

PART II

ARTICULUS III.

 

Quaestio II.

ARTICLE III

 

Question 2

 

Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pag. 127-128.
Cum Notitiis Originalibus

 

 

Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pp. 127-128.
Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.

 

QUAESTIO II.

 

Utrum Angelus naturali dilectione magis diligat superiorem, an parem, an inferiorem.

QUESTION 2

 

Whether an Angel by natural dilection loves (his) superior more, or (his) peer, or (his) inferior?

CIRCA SECUNDUM sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum Angelus naturali dilectione magis diligat1 superiorem, an parem, an inferiorem.

ABOUT THE SECOND one proceeds thus and asks, whether an Angel by natural dilection loves1 more a superior, or a peer, or an inferior.

Et quod magis superiorem, videtur.

And it seems that (he loves) more a superior.

1. Si Angelus Angelum naturaliter diligit, aut ergo quia bonum, aut quia beneficum; sed quocumque modo Angelus superioris ordinis magis est bonus; et iterum amplius est beneficus, quia Angelus inferioris ordinis a superiori recipit illuminationes per eum modum, per quem Dionysius2 dicit:  ergo etc.

1. If an Angel naturally loves (another) Angel, therefore either because (the latter is) good, or because (the latter is) beneficent [beneficum]; but in whatsoever manner an Angel of superior order is more good; he is again also  more amply beneficent, because an Angel of an inferior order receives illuminations from the superior through that manner, through which (St.) Dionysius (the Areopagite)2 speaks of:  ergo etc..

2. Item, Angelus per naturam institutam Deum super omnia diligebat:3  ergo si illud quod magis approximat ad summum, in omni genere est magis intensum, ergo si summe diligebat Deum, id est super omnia, ergo magis illud quod Deo erat similius et proximus; sed Angelus superioris ordinis est huiusmodi:  ergo etc.

2. Likewise, an Angel through instituted nature loved God above all (things):3  therefore if that which draws more near to the highest, in every genus is more intense, therefore if he loved God most highly, that is above all (things), therefore (he loved) more that which was more similar and nearer to God; but an Angel of a superior order is of this kind:  ergo etc..

3. Item, Angelus inferioris ordinis nolebat aequiparari Angelo superioris ordinis, quantum erat de naturali appetitu, ergo magis et eminentius bonum illi volebat quam sibi; sed super omnes Angelos pares et inferiores se diligebat:  ergo etc.

3. Likewise, an Angel of an inferior order was unwilling to be equally peered [aequiparari] with an Angel of a superior order, as much as concerned (his) natural appetite, therefore he willed the good more and more eminently to him than himself; but he loves himself above all Angels, peers and inferiors:  ergo etc..

Quod autem magis diligeret Angelum eiusdem ordinis, videtur.

On the other hand, it seems, that he loves more an Angel of the same order.

4. Dilectio naturalis concernit similitudinem; unde Ecclesiastici decimo tertio:4  Omne animal diligit simile sibi; sed Angelus eiusdem ordinis similior est Angelo sui ordinis quam alterius:  ergo magis diligit.

4. Natural dilection concerns a similitude; whence in the thirteenth (chapter) of Ecclesiasticus (there is written):4  Every animal loves a similar to itself; but an Angel of the same order is more similar to an Angel of his own order than (to one) of another (order):  therefore he loves (him) more.

5. Item, naturalis dilectio intenditur per familiaritatem et domesticitatem — unde magis diligit homo naturaliter domesticum et socium suum quam extraneum5 — sed maior est familiaritas et societas Angelorum eiusdem ordinis:  ergo etc.

5. Likewise, natural dilection is maintained [intenditur] through familiarity and domesticity — wherefore a man naturally loves more his own domestic and companion than an outsider [extraneum]5 — but a greater familiarity and society belong to the Angels of the same order:  ergo etc..

6. Item, Ecclesia triumphans conformis est Ecclesiae militanti;6 sed in Ecclesia militante est distinctio ordinum et religionum, et recto et ordinato affectu, qui non repugnat gratiae, plus iungitur homo ei qui est eiusdem professionis:  ergo pari ratione et Angelus naturali dilectione plus diligebat Angelos eiusdem ordinis.

6. Likewise, the Church Triumphant is conform to the Church Militant;6 but in the Church Militant there is a distinction of orders (among the clergy) and of religions (i.e. religious orders), and by a right and ordered affection, which is not repugnant to grace, a man is more joined to him who is of the same profession:  therefore for an equal reason an Angel, too, loves more by natural dilection the Angels of the same order.

Quod autem magis Angelos inferioris ordinis, videtur.

On the other hand, it seems, that (he loves) more the Angels of an inferior order:

7. Primo, quia « probatio dilectionis est exhibitio operis »;7 sed Angelus superioris ordinis plus se communicat Angelo inferioris quam paris vel superioris, sed ad hoc faciendum ordinatur per naturam, non solum per gratiam:  ergo etc.

7. First, because « the proof of love [probatio dilectionis] is the exhibition of work »;7 but an Angel of a superior order communicates himself more to an Angel of an inferior one than (to an Angel) of an equal [paris] and/or superior one, but he is ordained to do this through nature, not only through grace:  ergo etc..

8. Item, per naturam plus amat rationalis creatura praeesse quam subesse; sed Angelus medii ordinis ideo subest, quia habet superiores, ideo praeest, quia habet inferiores:  ergo si magis diligit praeesse,8 magis per naturam diligit habere ordines inferiores quam superiores:  ergo etc.

8. Likewise, through nature a rational creature loves [amat] more ‘being before’ than ‘being under’; but an Angel of an intermediary order is beneath for this reason, because he has superiors, (and) is before, because he has inferiors:  therefore if he loves [diligit] ‘being before’ more,8 he loves through nature more the having of inferior orders than superior ones:  ergo etc..

9. Item, nos videmus in linea consanguinitatis carnalis, quod magis diligit homo eum qui est infra, quam eum qui est supra, vel iuxta, ut puta magis filium quam patrem vel fratrem, et hoc est per naturam:  ergo videtur pari ratione, quod in ordinibus Angelorum magis affectio convertatur ad eum qui infra est, cum nullum sit vinculum consanguinitatis, nec supra nec iuxta.

9. Likewise, we see the in the line of carnal consanguinity, that a man loves more him who is below, than him who is above, and/or alongside, as for example a son more than a father and/or brother, and this is through nature:  therefore it seems for an equal reason, that in the orders of the Angels a greater affection is converted to him who is below, though there is no bond [vinculum] of consanguinity, and not (to him who is) above, nor (to him who is) alongside.

CONCLUSIO.

 

Angelus ratione maioris boni optati magis diligit superiorem Angelum; ratione intensioris affectus plus diligit aequalem; ratione vero impensi beneficii plus diligit inferiorem.

CONCLUSION

 

An Angel according to the reckoning of the greater good wished for, loves more a superior Angel; according to the reckoning of a more intense affection loves more an equal; but according to the reckoning of the benefice bestowed loves more an inferior.

RESPONDEO:  Dicendum, quod magis diligere aliquem, hoc potest esse tripliciter:  aut ratione boni optati, aut ratione9 affectus intensi, aut ratione effectus impensi.

I RESPOND:  It must be said, that ‘to love someone more’, this can be in a threefold manner:  either according to the reckoning of the good wished for [boni optati], or according to the reckoning9 of affection maintained [affectus intensi], or according to the reckoning of an effect bestowed [effectus impensi]

Ratione boni optati dicitur quis aliquem magis diligere, quando magis bonum optat; et sic dicitur diligere magis, quia ad maius.  Hoc modo naturali . . .

One is said “to love someone more” according to the reckoning of the good wished for, when he wishes for a greater good; and thus he is said “to love more”, because (he wishes) for something greater.  In this manner by a natural . . .

1  Multi codd. cum edd. 1, 2 diligeret.

2  De Caelesti Hierarch. c. 3. § 2; c. 7. § 3; c. 9. § 2 et c. 10, ubi docet, quod hi tres actus:  purgare, illuminare et perficere conveniunt Angelis tum secundum ordinem hierarchiae, tum secundum dispositionem ordinum in hierarchia, tum secundum dispositionem personarum in ordine, ita quidem, ut prima hierarchia sit tantum a Deo illuminata, illuminans mediam et ultimam; media autem sit illuminata a prima et illuminans tertiam; tertia tandem sit illuminata, non illuminans aliquam hierarchiam angelicam, sed tantum ecclesiasticam.  Simili modo est de ordinibus in hierarchia et de personis in ordinibus.  Ratio praecipua inde sumitur, quod inferiora per superiora reducantur ad Deum.  —  In minori post superioris ordinis cod. L subiungit magis diligendus, quia Angelus superioris ordinis.

3  Cfr. quaest. praeced.

4  Vers. 19.  —  In fine arg. cod. Q (a 2. manu) addit eum.

5  Cfr. Aristot., VIII. Ethic. c. 5. et 12.

6  Vide Dionys., de Eccles. Hierarch. c. 1. § 2. seqq.

7  Gregor., in Evang. hom. 30. n. 1.

8  In cod. T additur quam subesse.

9  Vat. cum non paucis codd. omittit ratione.

1  Many codices, together with editions 1 and 2, have loved [diligeret] for loves [diligat].

2  On the Celestial Hierarchies, ch. 3, § 2; ch. 7, § 3; ch. 9 § 2, and ch. 10, where he teaches, that these three acts:  to purge, to illumine and to perfect convene with the Angels both according to the order of (their) hierarchy, and according to the disposition of (their) orders in hierarchy, and according to the disposition of (their) persons in an order, thus, indeed, that the first hierarchy is the one illuminated only by God, illuminating the middle and last (order); but the middle one is the one illuminated by the first and illuminating the third; finally the third one is the one illuminated, not illuminating any angelic hierarchy, but only the ecclesiastical (hierarchy).  It is in a similar manner concerning the orders in a hierarchy and concerning persons in the orders.  The chief reason is taken from this, that inferiors are lead back to God through the superiors.  —  In the minor (of the argument) after of a superior order [superioris ordinis] codex L subjoins (is) more to be loved, because an Angel of a superior order [magis diligendus, quia Angelus superioris ordinis].

3  Cf. the preceding Question.

4  Verse 19.  —  At the end of the argument codex Q (by a second hand) adds him [eum].

5  Cf. Aristotle, Ethics, Bk. VIII, chs. 5 and 12.

6  See (St.) Dionysius, On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchies, ch. 1, § 2 ff.

7  (St.) Gregory (the Great), On the Gospel, Homily 30, n. 1.

8  In codex T there is added than ‘being under’ [quam subesse].

9  The Vatican edition, together with not a few codices, omits according to the reckoning [ratione].

p. 128

dilectione, procedente ex iudicio rationis rectae, magis diligebat Angelus Angelum superiorem.  Volebat enim, ipsum excellere et plus boni habere, sicut et Deus conditor voluit sic ordinare.  —  Ratione affectus intensi dicitur aliquis magis alterum diligere, quando affectio eius plus trahit ad1 alterum, et magis consolatur de eius societate; et sic dicitur aliquis magis illum diligere, cum quo libentius cohabitat.  Et sic Angelus magis diligebat per naturam Angelum eiusdem ordinis; quia, sicut naturali affectu magis diligit quis compatriotas suos, maxime quando conformantur2 sibi in moribus; et sicut magis diligit homo eum qui est eiusdem professionis et officii, ubi invidia non interponit partes suas:  sic Angelus alterum Angelum eiusdem ordinis magis dilectione naturali amplecti intelligendus est,3 cum se videret a Conditore in officii aequalitate et naturae similitudine illi sociatum, nec esset tunc morum diversitas nec invidiae malignitas.  —  Ratione effectus sive beneficii impensi dicitur quis magis eum diligere, cui plura bona impendi, et circa quem magis sollicitatur, sicut mater magis confovet filium tenellum et sollicitior est circa illum quam circa adultum, et magis circa infirmum quam circa sanum.  Et huius ratio est consideratio maioris indigentiae. Et hoc modo dici potest, quod Angelus superioris ordinis magis diligit Angelum inferioris,4 quia Angelus paris vel superioris ordinis non indiget sic sua instructione, sive purgatione, secundum quod Angelus inferioris ordinis.

dilection, proceeding from the judgment of right reason, an Angel loved more a superior Angel.  For he willed, that the latter excel and have more of the good, just as God, (his) Founder, willed thus to ordain.  —  One is said “to love someone more” according to the reckoning of the affection maintained, when his affection draws (him) more toward1 the other, and he is more consoled from his society; and in this manner someone is said “to love more” him, with whom he more freely dwells together.  And in this manner an Angel loves more, through nature, an Angel of the same order; because, just as one loves by natural affection more his own compatriots [compartriotas], most of all when they are conformed2 to him in morals [in moribus]; and thus a man loves more him who belongs to the same profession and office, where envy does not interpose itself between them [interponit partes suas]:  so an Angel is to be understood3 to esteem [amplecti] more an Angel of the same order by natural dilection, since he saw that he (had been) associated [sociatum] with him by (his) Founder in an equality of office and a similitude of nature, and (since) there was at that time [tunc] no diversity of morals nor malignity of envy.  — One is said “to love one more” according to the reckoning of the effect or benefice bestowed [impensi], to whom he bestows more goods, and about whom he is more solicitous, just as a mother cherishes more completely [magis confovet] (her) little tender son [filium tenellum] and is more solicitous about him than about (her) adult (son), and more about an infirm (son) than a healthy one.  And the reason for this is the consideration of (his) greater indigence.  And in this manner it can be said, that an Angel of a superior order loves more an Angel of an inferior one,4 because an Angel of an equal [paris] and/or superior order does not need his instruction, or purgation, in the same manner, according to which an Angel of an inferior order (does).

Et sic secundum diversas vias membra propositae quaestionis se habent sicut excedentia et excessa, et ideo rationes ad tria praedicta membra decurrentes sibi non obviant, et concedi possunt, quamvis non sint multum cogentes.  —  Si autem quis ex praedictis rationibus simpliciter velit inferre maioritatem dilectionis, unica responsione potest omnibus obviari, scilicet quod omnes procedunt ab insufficienti.  Si vero concluditur excessus dilectionis determinatae vel in bono optato, vel in affectu intenso, et in effectu impenso, satis de plano omnes possunt concedi.

And thus according to diverse ways the members of the proposed Question hold themselves as ones exceeding and exceeded, and for that reason the reasons given [decurrentes] for the three aforesaid members do not oppose one another [sibi non obviant], and they can be conceded, even though they are not very compelling [cogentes].  —  But if anyone wants to simply infer from the aforesaid reasons a greater quantity of love [maioritatem dilectionis], a unique response can be brought against all [omnibus obviari], namely, that all proceed from an insufficient (reason).  However, if an excess of love [dilectionis] determined either in the good wished for, and/or in the affection maintained, and in the effect bestowed, is concluded, all (these reasons) can be conceded in a sufficiently easy manner [satis de plano].

SCHOLION.

SCHOLIUM

I. Etiam Petr. a Tar. (hic q. 5. a. 2.) adhibet distinctionem, qua utitur S. Bonav., et dicit:  Magis diligere quis alterum altero potest dici tripliciter:  aut ratione boni optati, aut ratione affectus intensi, aut effectus impensi »; atque etiam in conclusionibus cum Seraphico convenit.  Alii nonnulli secundum membrum non admittunt, hac ducti ratione, quia non sit gradus in intensitate operationis angelicae, cum Angeli semper operentur toto conatu.  —  Etiam Richard. a Med. (hic a. 7. q. 2.) paulo aliter resolvit, scil. quod Angelus naturaliter Angelum superiorem magis diligebat « quam sibi magis propinquum vel aequalem, et bonum maius illi volebat et bonum illius intensius optando ».

I. Even (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise (here in q. 5, a. 2) employs the distinction, which St. Bonaventure uses, and says:  Someone can be said “to love one more than another” in a threefold manner:  either according to the reckoning of the good wished for, or according to the reckoning of the affection maintained, or of the effect bestowed »; and he even convenes with the Seraphic (Doctor) in (his) conclusions.  Not a few others do not admit the second member (of the division), lead (as they are) by this reason, that there is no gradation in the intensity of an angelic operation, since the Angels always operate with (their) entire striving [toto conatu].  —  Even Richard of Middleton (here in a. 7, a. 2) resolves (the question) in a slightly different manner, namely, that an Angel naturally loved a superior Angel more « than one more near and/or equal to himself, and willed the good more to him by also wishing the good to him more intensely ».

II. Alii doctores de hoc non disputant, vel rem tangunt quaerendo, utrum unus Angelus naturali dilectione diligat alium, sicut se ipsum, de quo tractant Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 30. a. 2. § 3.  —  S. Thom., S. I. q. 60. a. 4.  —  B. Albert., S. p. II. tr. 4. q. 14. m. 4. a. 3.  —  Aegid. R., hic p. II. q. 3. a. 1. dub. lat. 1.

II. Other doctors do not dispute concerning this, and/or touch upon the matter, asking whether one Angel by natural dilection loves another, just as himself, of which (the following) treat:  Alexander of Hales, Summa., p. II, q. 30, a. 2, § 3.  —  St. Thomas, Summa., I, q. 60, a. 4.  —  Bl. (now St.) Albertus (Magnus), Summa., p. II, tr. 4, q. 14, m. 4, a. 3.  —  Giles the Roman, here in p. II, q. 3, a. 1, lateral doubt 1.

1  In sola Vat. omittitur ad.  Codd. A M aa bene trahitur ad pro trahit ad.

2  Vat. conformatur.

3  Hucusque in edd. incongrue intelligendum est, cui lectioni plurimi codd. favent.  Nostra lectio exhibetur a cod. Y.  Mox Vat. cum se viderit pro cum se videret.

4  Supple cum cod. aa quam Angelum paris et superioris.  Aliquanto superius Vat. Magister pro mater et hoc facit pro huius ratio est.

1  In the Vatican edition alone there is omitted (him) . . . toward [ad].  Codices A M and aa have well is drawn more toward [plus trahitur ad] for draws (him) more toward [plus trahit ad].

2  The Vatican edition reads he is conformed to them [conformatur sibi] for they are conformed to him [conformantur sibi].

3  In the editions there is incongruously read it must be understood [intelligendum est], which reading very many codices favor.  Our reading, is to be understood [intelligendus est], is exhibited by codex Y.  Next the Vatican edition has since he sees [cum se viderit] for since he saw [cum se videret].

4  Supply together with codex aa than an Angel of an equal and superior one [quam Angelum paris et superioris].  Somewhat above this the Vatican edition has the Master (i.e. the Lord Jesus) [Magister] for a mother [mater] and (afterwards) reads the consideration of (his) greater indigence causes this [hoc facit] for the reason for this is the consideration of (his) greater indigence [huius ratio est].

This English Translation and the digitization of the Latin and English texts, the HTML markup,  all emendations and corrections of the Latin text, and all notes by the Translator, are © 2007, 2008 by Br. Alexis Bugnolo.  The / symbol is used to indicate that the text which follows appears on the subsequent page of the Quaracchi Edition. The translation of the notes in English corresponds to the context of the English text, not that of the Latin text; likewise they are a freer translation than that which is necessitated by the body of the text. Items in square [ ] brackets contain Latin terms corresponding to the previous English word(s), or notes added by the English translator.
Items in round ( ) brackets are terms implicit in the Latin syntax or which are required for clarity in English.